captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: welcome to the pbs newshour's special coverage of the third and final debate between president barack obama and former governor mitt romney of massachusetts. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. tonight, foreign policy takes center stage. bob schieffer of cbs news is the moderator. the debate is being held at the johnson wold performing arts center on the campus of lynn

university in boca raton, and will begin in just a few seconds. >> woodruff: mark shields and david brooks will be watching with us here in the studio, along with our colleague jeffrey brown, newshour political editor christina bellantoni, and presidential historian michael beschloss. we'll hear from all of them after the debate, when we'll also be joined by ari shapiro and scott horsley of npr. they are at lynn university. >> ifill: we're also streaming the debate online and offering additional content on our live blog. >> woodruff: and here now is tonight's moderator, bob schieffer of cbs news. from the campus of lynn university here in boca raton, florida. this is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign brought to you by the commission on presidential debates. this one is on foreign policy. i'm bob schieffer of cbs news. the questions are mine. and i have not shared them with the candidates or their

aides. the audience has taken a vow of silence. no applause, no reaction of any kind except right now when we welcome president barack obama and governor mitt romney. (applause) >> thank you. >> thank you, good to see you again. (cheers and applause) >> schieffer: gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. they've asked me to divide the evening into segments. i'll pose a question at the beginning of each segment. you will each have 2 minutes to respond and then we will have a general discussion

until we move to the next segment. tonight's debate, as both of you know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that president kennedy told the world that the soviet union had installed nuclear missiles in cuba. perhaps the closest we've ever come to nuclear war. and it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. so let's begin. the first segment is the challenge of a changing middle east and the new face of terrorism. i'm going to put this into two segments. so you will have two topic questions within this one segment on the subject. the first question, and it concerns libya. the controversy over what happened there continues four americans are dead, including an american ambassador. questions remain, what happened, what caused it, was it spontaneous, was it

an intelligence failure. was it a policy -- -- policy failure. was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened. governor romney, you said this was an example of an american policy in the middle east that is unraveling before our very eyes. i would like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that. governor romney, you won the toss. you go first. >> thank you, bob. and thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. thank you to lynn university for welcoming us here and mr. president, it's good to be with you again. we were together at a humorous event a little earlier and it's nice to maybe be funny this time, not on purpose. we'll see what happens. this is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world, and to america in particular. which is to see a complete change in the structure and the environment in the middle east. with the arab spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, an

opportunity for greater pansion on the part of women in public life and in the economic life in the middle east. but instead we've seen nation after nation, a number of disturbing events. of course we see in syria 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. we see in libya, an attack, apparently by, i think we know now by terrorists of some kind against our people there, four people dead. our hearts and minds go to them. mali has been taken over, the north part of mali by al qaeda type individuals, in egypt. what we are seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal, the hopes for that region, of course the greatest threat of all is iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. and we're going to have to recognize that we have to, do as the president has done. i congratulate him on taking out osama bin laden and going after the leadership in al qaeda.

but we can't kill our way out of this mess. we're going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of islam, and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism which is-- it's certainly not on the run. it's certainly not hiding. this is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries. and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to america, long term. and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism. >> schieffer: mr. president. >> well, my first job as commander in chief, bob, is to keep the american people safe. and that's what we've done over the last four years. we ended the war in iraq. we focused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. and as a consequence, al qaeda's core leadership has been decimated. in addition, we're now able to transition out of afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that afghans take responsible for

their own security. and that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. now with respect to libya, as i indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, i immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those americans who were still in harm away. number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened. and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed americans and we would bring them to justice. and that's exactly what we are going to do. but i think it's important to step back and think about what happened in libya. now keep in mind that i and americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to, without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in iraq, liberate

a country that had been under the yolk of dictatorship for 40 years. got rid of a despot who had killed americans. and as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of libyans after the events in benghazi marching and saying america is our friend. we stand with them. now that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of. and governor romney, i'm glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al qaeda, but i have to tell you that your strategy, previously, has been one that has been all over the map. and is not designed to keep americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the middle east. >> well, my strategy is pretty straightforward. which is to go after the bad guys. to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to kill them, to take them out of the picture. but my strategy is broader than that. that's important, of course. but the key that we're going to have to pursue is a

pathway to get the muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. we don't want another iraq. we don't want another afghanistan. that is not the right course for us. the right course for us is to make sure that we go after the people who are leaders of these var why anti-american groups and these jihadists. but also help the muslim world. and how do we do that? the group of arab scholars-- scholars came together organized by the u.n. to look at how we can help the world reject these terrorists. and the answer they came up with was this, one, more economic development. we should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure that we push back and give them more economic development. number two, better education. number three, gender equality, number four, the rule of law. we have to help these nations create civil societies. but what's been happening over the last couple of years, as we've watched this tumult in the middle east, this rising tide of chaos occur, you see al qaeda rushing in. you see other jihadist

groups rushing in. and there throughout many nations in the middle east. it's wonderful that libya seems to be making some progress despite this terrible tragedy. but next door, of course, we have egypt. libya 6 million population, egypt 80 million population. we want to make sure that we are seeing progress throughout the middle east, with mali having north mali taken over by al qaeda, with syria having assad continuing to a sass-- or to kill, murder his own people, this is a region in tumult. and of course iran, on the path to a nuclear weapon. we've got real problems in the region. >> schieffer: let's give the president a chance. >> governor romney, i'm glad that you recognize that al qaeda is a threat. because a few months ago when you were asked what the biggest geo political threat facing america, you said russia. not al qaeda. you said russia. in the 1980s or now, calling for their foreign policy back. because the cold war has been over for 20 years. but governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the

foreign policy of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s. you say that you're nod interested in duplicating what happened in iraq. but just a few weeks ago you said you think we should have more troops in iraq right now. and the challenge we have, i know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong. you said we should have gone into iraq despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. you said that we should still have troops in iraq to this day. you indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with russia, despite the fact that 71 senators, democrats and republicans voted for it. you've said that first we should not have a time line in afghanistan, then you said we should. now you say maybe, or

depends. which means not only were you wrong, but you're also confusing and sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies. so what we need to do with respect to the middle east is strong, steady leadership. not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. and, unfortunately, that's the kind of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign. and it is not a recipe for american strength or keeping america safe over the long term. >> schieffer: i will add a couple minutes here to give you a chance to respond. >> well, of course, i don't concur with what the president said about my own record, and the things that i have said. they don't happen to be accurate. but i can say this. that we're talking about the middle east and how to help the middle east reject the kind of terrorism we're seeing and the rising tide of tumult and confusion. and attacking me is not an agenda. attacking me is not talking about how we are going to deal with the challenges that exist in the middle east and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this

violence. but i will respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. first of all, russia, i indicated is a geo political foe, it is a geo political foe and in the same paragraph i said and iran is the greatest national security threat we face. russia does continue to battle us in the u.n. time and time again. i have clear eyes on this. i'm not going to wear rose-coloured glass when it comes to russia or mr. putin. and i'm certainly to the going to say to him i will give you more flex abilities after the election. after the election he will get more backbone. number two, with regards to iraq, you and i agreed, i believe, that there should have been a status of forces of agreement. >> that is not true. >> you didn't want a status of forces agreement? >> what i would not have done is left 10,000 troops in iraq that would tie us down. that certainly would not help us in the middle east. >> i'm sorry, you actually-- there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement and i concurred in that and said we should have some number of troops that stayed on. that was something i concurred with, that was your posture that was my

posture as well. you thought it should have been 5,000 troops, i thought it should have been more troops. the answer was we got -- >> this is just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in iraq. >> i'm sorry that's -- >> you made that in a speech. >> i indicated that you failed to put in place a status of force as agreement at the end of the conflict. >> governor, here is one thing i have learned as commander in chief. you've got to be clear. both to our allies and our enemies about where you stand. and what you mean. now you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in iraq. that is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenge of the middle east. now it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. and so what i have done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts. number two, make sure that

they are standing by our interests in israel's security. because it is a true friend, and our greatest ally in the region. number three, we do have to make sure that we're protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can't develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing. number four, we do have to develop their economic-- their economic capabilities, but number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to donation-building in these regions. part of american leadership is making sure that we are doing nation-building here at home. that will help us maintain the kind of american leadership that we need. >> schieffer: let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the middle east and so on. and that as you both mentioned, alluded to this, and that is syria. the war in syria has now spilled over into lebanon. we have what, more than a hundred people that were killed there in a bomb. there were demonstrations

there. 8 people dead. mr. president, it's been more than a year since you saw-- you told assad he had to go. since then 30,000 syrians have died. we've had 300,000 refugees. the war goes on. he's still there. should we reassess our policy, and see if we can find a better way to influence events there? or is that even possible? and you go first, sir. >> what we've done is organized the international community, saying assad has to go. we've mobilized sanctions against that government. we've made sure that they are isolated. we have provided humanitarian assistance and we are helping the opposition organize. and we're particularly interested in making sure that we're mobilizing the moderate forces inside of syria. but ultimately, syrians are going to have to determine their own future. and so everything we're doing, we're doing in consultation with our partners in the region, including israel, which

obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in syria. coordinating with turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. now what we're seeing taking place in syria is heartbreaking. and that's why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. but we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in syria is a serious step. and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or our allies in the region. and i am confident that assad's days are numbered. but what we can't do is to simply suggest that as governor romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long-term. >> schieffer: governor? >> well, let's step back and talk about what is happening it in syria and how

important it is, first of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. secondly, syria is an opportunity for us, because syria plays an important role in the middle east, particularly right now. syria is iran's only ally in the arab world. it's their route to the sea. it's the route for them to arm hezbollah in lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally israel. and so seeing syria remove assad is a very high priority for us. number two, seeing a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. and finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. we don't want to get drawn into a military conflict. and so the right course for us is working through our partners and with our own resources to identify responsible parties within syria, organize them, bring them together in a form of, if not government, a form of counsel that can take the lead in syria. and then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. we do need to make sure that

they don't have arms that get into the wrong hands. that those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. we need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies, and particularly with israel. but the saudis and the qatari and turks are all very concerned about this. they are willing to work with us. we need to have a very effective leadership effort in syria, making sure that the insurgents there are armed and that the insurgents that become armed are people who will be the responsible parties. recognize, i believe that assad must go. i believe he will go. but i believe we want to make sure that we haved relationships of friendship with the people that take his place, such that in the years to come we see syria as a friend, and syria as a responsible party in the middle east. this is a critical opportunity for america. and what i am afraid of is that we have watched over the past year or so, first the president saying well, we'll let the u.n. deal with it. and assad-- excuse me, kofi annan came in and said we'll

try to have a cease-fire, that didn't work. then looked to the russians and said see if you can do something. we should be playing the leadership role there, not on the ground with military, play the leadership roel. >> we are playing a leadership role. we organized the friends of syria. we are mobilizing humanitarian support and support for the opposition. and we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term. but going back to libya, because this is an example of how we make choices. when we went into libya and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there, because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize, we also had to make sure that moammar qaddafi didn't stay there. and to the governor's credit you supported us going into libya and the coalition that we organized. but when it came time to making sure that qaddafi did not stay in power, that he

was captured, governor, your suggestion, was that this was mission creek, that this was mission muddle. imagine if we had pulled out at that point. now moammar qaddafi had more american blood on his hands than any individual other than osama bin laden. and so we were going to make sure that we finished the job. that is part of the reason why the libyans stand with us. but we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with. that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with, and we had to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to syria, that is exactly what we are doing. >> schieffer: governor, can i just ask you, would you go beyond what the administration would do, like, for example, would you put in no-fly zones over syria? >> i don't want to have our military involved in syria. i don't think there is a necessity to put our military in syria at this stage. i don't anticipate that in

the future. as i indicated our objectives are to replace assad and have in place a new government which is friendly to us, a responsible government, if possible, and i want to make sure they get armed. and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves, but also to remove assad. but i do not want to see a military involvement on the part of our troops. and this isn't going to be necessary. we have, with our partners in the region, we have sufficient resources to support those groups. but look, this has been going on for a year. this is a time-- this should have been a time for american leadership. we should have taken a leading role, not militarily but a leading role, organizationally, governmentally to bring together the parties there, to find responsible parties. you hear from intelligence sources even today the insurgents are highly disparate, they haven't come together. they haven't formed a unity group, a council of some kind. that needs to happen. america can help that happen. and we need to make sure

they have the arms they need to carry out the very important role which is getting rid of assad. >> schieffer: can we get a quick response, mr. president. >> i will be very quick. what you just heard governor romney said, is he doesn't have different ideas. and that is because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate syrian leadership, and an effective transition so that we get assad out. that's the kind of leadership we've known. that's the kind of leadership we will continue to show. >> schieffer: may i ask you, you know, during the egyptian turmoil there came a point when you said it was time for president mubarak to go. some in your administration thought perhaps we should have waited awhile on that. do you have any regrets about that? >> no, i don't. because i think that america has to stand with democracy. the notion that we would have tanks run over those young people who were in ta require square is not the kind of american leadership

that john f. kennedy talked about 50 years ago. but what i have also said is that now that you have a democraticly elected government in egypt that they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities. and we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they're doing that; to recognize the rights of women which is critical throughout the region. these countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need. they have to abide by their treaty with israel. that is a red line for us. because not only is israel's security at stake about our security is at stake if that unravels. they have to make sure they are cooperating with us when it comes to counterterrorism and we will help them with respect to developing their own economy because ultimately what is going to make the egyptian revolution successful for the people of egypt but also for the world is if those young people who gathered there are seeing opportunities. their aspirations are

similar to young people's here. they want jobs. they want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school. they want to make sure they have roof over their heads and that they have the prospects of a better life in the future. and so one of the things we have been doing is, for example, organizing entrepreneurship conferences with these egyptians to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that is noncorrupt, that's transparent. but what is also important for us to understand is that for america to be successful in this region, there are some things that we are going to have to do here at home as well. you know, one of the challenges over the last decade is we've done experiments in nation-building in places like iraq and afghanistan. and we've neglected, for example, developing our own economy, our own energy sectors, our own education system. and it's very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we are not doing what we need to do. >> schieffer: governor romney, i want to hear your

response to that. but i would just ask you, would you have stuck with mubarak? >> no, i believe as the president indicated, inste at the time that i supported his action there, i felt that i wish we would have had a better vision of the future. i wish that looking back at the beginning of the president's term and even further back than that that we would have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world. and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government such that it didn't explode in the way it did. but once it exploded, i felt the same as the president did. which is these freedom voices in the streets of egypt, the people who were speaking of our principleses and president mubarak had done things which were unimaginable, and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support. let me step back and talk about what i think our mission has to be in the middle east and even more broadly. because our purpose is to make sure the world is

peaceful. we want a peaceful planet. we want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they are going to have a bright and prosperous future and not be at war. that is our purpt. in the mantle of leadership for promoting the principleses of peace has fallen to america. we didn't ask for it, but it is an honor that we have it. but for us to be able to promote those principleses of peace requires us to be strong. and that begins with a strong economy here at home. and unfortunately, the economy is not stronger. when the president of iraq-- excuse me, of iran, ahmadinejad says that our debt makes us not a great country, that's a frightening thing. the former chief-- joints chief of staff, admiral mullen said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. we have weakened our economy. we need a strong economy. we need to have, as well, a strong military. our military is second to none in the world. we're blessed with terrific soldiers and extraordinary technology and intelligence. but the idea of a trillion dollars in cuts through sequestration and budget cuts to the military would

change that we need to have strong allies. our association and connection with our allies is essential to america's strength. we're the great nation that has allies, 42 allies and friends around the world. and finally we have to stand by our principleses. and if we're strong in each of those things, american influence will grow. but unfortunately, in nowhere in the world is america's influence greater today than it was four years ago. and that's because we have become weaker on each of those four-- . >> schieffer: you will get a chance to respond to that because it is a perfect segue into our next segment. and that is, what is america's role in the world. and that is the question, what do each of you see as our role in the world and i believe governor romney, it's your turn to go first. >> well, i absolutely believe that america has a responsibility. and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principleses that make the world more peaceful. and those principleses

include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. they don't vote for war. so we want to promote those principleses around the world. we recognize that there are places of conflict in the world. we want to end those conflicts to the extent humanly possible. but in order to be able to fulfill our role in the world, america must be strong. america must lead. and for that to happen we have to strengthen our economy here at home. you can't have 23 million people struggling to get a job. you can't have-- an economy that over the last three years keeps slowing down its growth rate. you can't have kids coming out of college, half of them can't find a job today, or a job that's commensurate with their college degree. we have to get our economy going. and our military. we've got to strengthen our military long-term. we don't know what the world is going to throw at us down the roads. we make decisions today in the military that will

confront challenges we can't imagine. in the 2,000 debates there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. and a year later 9/11 happened. so we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty. and that means a strong military. i will not cut our military budget. we have to also stand by our allies. i think the tension that existed between israel and the united states was very unfortunate. i think also that pulling our missile defense program out of poland in the way we did was also unfortunate in terms of, if you will, disrupting the relationship in some ways that existed between us. and then, of course, with regards to standing for our principleses, when the students took to the treats in tehran and the people there protested, the green revolution occurred, for the president to be silent, i thought, was an enormous mistake. we have to stand for our principleses, stand for our allies, stand for a strong military and stand for a strong economy. >> schieffer: mr. president. >> america remains the one indispensable nation.

and its world needs a strong america and it is stronger now than when i came into office. because we ended the war in iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat, but also beginning a transition process in afghanistan. it also allowed us to refocus on alliances, relationships that had been neglected for a decade. and governor romney, our alliances have never been stronger. in asia, in europe, in africa. with israel, where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the iranian threat. but what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding america. and that's what my plan does. making sure that we're bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we're creating jobs here as we've done with the auto industry. not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas. making sure that we've got the best education system in

the world. including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. doing everything we can to control our own energy. we've cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades. because we've developed oil and natural gas but we also have to develop clean energy technologies. that will allow us to cut our exports in half by 2020. >> that is the kind leadership we have to control and reduce our deficit, unfortunately governor romney's plan doesn't do it we have to do it in a responsible way by cutting out spending we don't need but also by asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more, that way we can invest in the research and technology that has always kept us at the cutting edge. now governor romney has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. now both at home and abroad he has proposed wrong and reckless policies. he's praised george bush as a good economic stewart and dick cheney as somebody who shows great wisdom and judge

am. and taking us back to those kinds of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century. >> schieffer: governor romney, wrong and reckless policies? >> i've got a policy for the future. and an agenda for the future. and when it comes to our economy here at home, i know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay. and what we've seen over the last four years is something i don't want to see over the next four years. the president said by now we would be at 5.4% unemployment. we are 9 million jobs short of that. i will get america working again, and see rising take-home pay again and i will do it with five simple steps. number one, we are going to have north american energy independence. we're going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and our renewables. number two, we're going to increase our trade. trade goes about 12 percent per year t doubles about every five or so years. we can do better than that, particularly in latin america. the opportunities for us in latin america, we are just

not taking advantage of fully. as a matter of fact, latin america's economy is almost as big as the economy of china. we're all focused on china. latin america is a huge opportunity for us, time zone, language opportunities. number three, we're going to have to have training programs that work for our workers, and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the kids first and the teachers union is going to have to go behind. and then we're going to have to get to a balanced budget. we can't expect entrepreneurs and businesses large and small to take their live save-- lifesavings or company's money and invest in america if they think we're headed to the road to greece. and that's where we're going right now unless we finally get off this spending and borrowing binge. and i'll get us on track to a balanced budget. and finally, number five, we've got to champion small business. small business where jobs come from. two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. new business formation is down at the lowest level in 30 years under this administration.

i want to bring it back and give back good jobs and rising take-home pay. >> let's talk about what we need to compete. first of all governor romney talks about small businesses. but governor, when you were in massachusetts, small businesses development ranked about 48 i think out of 50 states, in massachusetts, because the policies you are promoting don't help small businesses. the way you define small businesses include folks at the very top, they include you and me. that's not the kind of small business promotion we need. but let's take an example that we know is going to make a difference in the 21st century and that's our education policy. we didn't have a lot of chance to talk about this in the last debate. now under my leadership what we've done is reformed education, working with governors, 46 states. we've seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time and they are starting to finally make progress. and what i now want to do is to hire more teachers, especially in math and science because we know we have fallen behind when it

comes to math and science. and those teachers can make a difference. now governor romney, when you were asked by teachers whether or not this would help the economy grow, you said this isn't going to help the economy grow. when you were asked about reduced class sizes you said class sizes don't make a difference. but i tell you, if you talk to teachers, they will tell you it does make a difference. and if we've got math teachers who are able to provide the kind of support that they need for our kids, that is what is going to determine whether or not the new businesses are created here, companies are going to locate here depending on whether we've got the most highly skilled workforce, and the kinds of budget proposals that you put forward. when you don't ask you or me to pay a dime more in terms of reducing the deficit but instead we slash support for education tlarx is undermining our long-term competitiveness. that is not good for america's position in the world. and the world notices. >> schieffer: let me get back to foreign policy. can i just get back -- >> i need to speak a moment.

>> schieffer: okay. >> bob, just about education. because i'm so proud of the state that i had the chance to be governor of. we have every two years tests that look at how well our kids are doing. fourth graders and eight graders are tested in english and math. while i was governor i was proud that our fourth graders came out number one of all 50 states in english and also in math. and our eight graders number one in english and also in malt. first time one state had been number one in all four measures. how did we do that? well, republicans and democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principleses that focused on having great teachers in the classroom. >> ten years earlier -- >> that is what allowed us to become the number one state in the nation. >> but that was ten years before you took office. >> and then you cut education spending when you came into office. >> and we kept our schools number one in the nation. they are still number one today. and the principleses that we put in place, we also gave kids not just a graduation exam, that determined whether they were up to the skills needed to be able to

compete, but also if they graduated in the top quarter of their class, they got a four year tuition free ride at any massachusetts public institution of higher learning. >> that happened before you came into office. >> that was actually mine, actually, mr. president, you got that fact wrong. >> schieffer: i want to try to shift it. because we have heard some of this in the other debates. governor, you say you want a bigger military. you want a bigger navy. you don't want to cut defense spending. what i want to ask you, we were talking about financial-- in this country, where do you get the money. >> let's talk about its military but all the way through. first of all, from the beginning we will cut about 5% of the discretionary budget excluding military, that is number one. >> schieffer: can dow this without driving deep near debt. >> the good news is i will be happy to vah look. come on the web site, see how we come to a balanced budget within 8 to 10 years. we do it by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. by the way, number one i get rid of is obama care.

there are a number of things that sound good but frankly we just can't afford them. and that one doesn't sound good and it's not affordable. so i get rid of that one from day one, to the extent hugely possible, we get that out. we take program after program that we don't absolutely have to have and we get rid of them. number two, we take some programs that we are going to keep like medicaid which is a program for the poor, we take that health-care program for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently. as a governor i thought please, give me this program. i can-- run this nor efficiently than the federal government. and states by the way are proving it. states like arizona, rhode island have taken these medicaid dollars, have shown they can run these programs more cost-effectively. so i want to do those two things to get this to a balanced budget been 8 to 10 years. >> bob-- . >> schieffer: . >> let's get back to the military though. >> schieffer: that is what mi trying to find out about. >> he should have answered the first question.

look, governor romney's called for 5 trillion dollars of tax cuts that he says he is going to pay for by closing deductions. now the math doesn't work. but he continues to claim that he is going to do it he then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military is not asking for. now keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that i have been in office. we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined. china, russia, france, the united kingdom, you name it. and what i did was work with our joint chiefs of staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe. and that's the budget that we put forward. but what you can't do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military is not asking for, $5 trillion on tax cuts, you say that you

will pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions without naming what those loopholes and deductions are. and then somehow you are also going to deal with the deficit that we've already got. the math simply doesn't work. but when it comes to our military, what we have to think about is not, you know, just budgets the. we've got to think about capabilities. we need to think about cybersecurity. we need to be thinking about space. that's exactly what our budget does. but it's driven by strategy. it's not driven by politics. it's not driven by members of congress and what they would like to see. it's driven by what are we going to need to keep the american people safe. that's exactly what our budget does. and it also then allows us to reduce our deficit which is a significant national security concern. because we've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so we can project military power overseas. >> schieffer: . >> bob, i'm pleased that i

balanced budget. i was in the world of business for 25 years. if you didn't balance your budget, you went out of business. i went to the olympics. it was out of balance and we got it on balance and made a success there. i had the chance to be governor of a state, four years in a row, democrats and republicans came together to balance the budget. we cut taxes 19 times. balanced our budget. the president hasn't balanced a budget yet. >> i expect have to have the opportunity to do so myself. let's talk about military spending. our navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. the navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. we are now at 285. we're headed down to the low 200s if we go through a sequestration. that is unacceptable to me. i want to make sure we have the ships that are required by our navy. our air force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947. we changed for the first time since fdr. since fdr we always had the strategy the same, we could

fight in two conflicts at once. now we are changing to one conflict. this in my view is the highest responsibility of the president of the united states which is to maintain the safety of the american people. and i will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is the combination of the budget cuts that the president has, as well as the sequestration cuts. that in my view is making our future less certain and less secure. >> bob, i need to comment on this. first of all the sequester is to the something i proposed, it's something that congress has proposed. it will not happen. the budget that we're talking about is not reducing our military spending, it's maintaining it. but i think governor romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. you mentioned the navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships that than we did in 1916. governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonnettes because the nature of our military has changed. we had these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. we have ships that go underwater, nuclear

submarines. and so the question is not a game of battleship where we are counting ships. it's what are our capabilities. so when i sit down with the secretary of the navy, and the joint chiefs of staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps face with our troops that our veterans have the kind of support they need when they come home, and that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you are putting forward. because it just doesn't work. and we visited the web site quite a bit. and it still doesn't work. >> schieffer: a lot to cover. i would like to move to the next segment. red lines, israel and iran. would either of you and will you have two minutes and president obama you have the first go at this one. would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on israel is an attack on the united states?

which of course is the same promise that we give to our close allies like japan? and if you made such a delar-- declaration would not that deter iran? it certainly detered it the soviet union for a long, long time when we made that promise to our allies, mr. president? >> well, first of all, israel is a true friend t is our greatest ally in the region. and if israel is attacked, america will stand with israel. i've made that clear throughout my presidency. >> schieffer: so you are saying we've already made that declaration. >> i will stand with israel if they are attacked. and this is the reason why, working with israel we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history. in fact, this week we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with israel in history, this very week. but to the issue of iran, as long as i'm president of the

united states, iran will not get a nuclear weapon. i've made that clear when i came into office. we then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against iran in history. and it is crippling their economy. their currency has dropped 80%. their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with iraq 20 years ago. so their economy is in a shambles. and the reason we did this is because a nuclear iran is a threat to our national security and it's a threat to israel's national security. we cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. and for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to nonstate actors, that sun acceptable. and they have said they want to see israel wiped off the map. so the work that we've done with respect to sanctions, now offers iran a choice. they can take the diplomatic

route and end their nuclear program or they will have to face a united world and a united states president, me, who said we're not going to take any options off the table. the disagreement i have with governor romney is that during the course of this campaign he has often talked as if we should take premature military action. i think that would be a mistake. because when i sent young men and women into harm away, i always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort. >> schieffer: two minutes. >> well, first of all, i want to underscore the same point the president made, which is that if i'm president of the united states, when i'm president of the united states, we will stand with israel. and if israel is attacked, we have their back. not just diplomatically, not just culturally but militarily. that's number one. number two with regards to iran and the threat of iran, there's no question but that a nuclear iran, a nuclear capableable iran is a threat

to america. not only to our friends but ultimately to us to have iran have nuclear material, nuclear weapons that can be used against us or used to be threatening to us. it's also essential for us to understand what our mission is in iran. and that is to dissuade iran from having a nuclear weapon, through peaceful and diplomatic means. and crippling sanctions are something i called four or five years ago when i was in israel, at the conference i laid out seven step, crippling sanctions were number one. and they do work. you're seeing it right now in the economy. it's absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanction. i would have put them in place earlier but it's good that we have them. number two something i would add today is i would tighten those sanctions. i would say that ships that carry iranian oil can't come into our ports. i imagine the eu would agree with us as well. not only ships couldn't, i would say companies that are moving their oil can't, people that are trading in their oil can't. i would tighten those sanctions further. secondly i would take on diplomatic isolation efforts. i would make sure that

ahmadinejad is indicted under the genocide convention. his words, i amount to genocide in citation. i would indicted him for it i would also make sure their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world. the same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of south africa. we need to increase pressure time and time again on iran because anything other than a solution to this which says-- which stops this nuclear foley of theirs is unacceptable to america. and of course, a military action is the last resort. it is something one would only, only consider if all of the other avenues had been tried to their full extent. >> schieffer: let me ask both of you, as you know, there are reports that iran and the united states is part of an international group have agreed in principles to talks about iran's nuclear program. what is the deal if there are such talks, what is the deal that you would accept,

mr. president? >> well, first of all, those are reports in the newspaper, they are not true. but our goal is to get iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program. and abide by the u.n. resolutions that have been in place. because they had the opportunity to reenter the community of nations. and we would welcome that. there are people in iran who have the same aspirations as people all around the world, for a better life. and we hope that their leadership takes the right decision. but the deal we'll accept is they end their nuclear program. it's very straightforward. and i'm glad that governor romney agrees with the steps that we're taking. there have been times, governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign where it sounded like you thought that you would do the same things we did but would you say them louder and somehow that would make a difference. and it turns out that the work involved in setting up

these crippling sanctions is painstaking. it's meticulous. we started from the day we got into office. and the reason it was so important, and this is a testament to how we've restored american credibility and strength around the world, is we will to make sure that all the countries participated, even countries like russia and china. because if it's just thaws are imposing sanction, we've had sanctions in place for a long time. it's because we got everybody to agree that iran is seeing so much pressure. and we've got to maintain that pressure. there is a deal to be had. and that is that they abide by the rules that have already been established. they convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program. there are inspections that are very intrusive. but over time, what they can do is regain credibility. in the meantime, though, we're not going to let up the pressure until we have clear evidence that that takes place. and one last thing, just to

make this point. the clock is ticking. we're not going to allow iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere. and i've been very clear to them. you know, because of the intelligence coordination that we do with a range of countries, including israel, we have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity. which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program. and that clock is ticking. and we're going to make sure that if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon. >> schieffer: governor? >> i think from the very beginning one of the challenges we've had with iran is that they have looked at this administration and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be. i think they saw weakness where they had expected to find american strength. and i say that because from the very beginning the president has campaigned some four years ago said he would meet with all the world's worst actors in his

first year. we sit down with chavez and kim jung il w castro, and with president ahmadinejad of iran. and i think they looked and thought well that's an unusual honor to receive from the president of the united states. and then the president began what i've called an apology tour of going to various nations in the middle east and criticizing america. i think they look at that and saw weakness-- weakness. then when there were dissidents in the streets of tehran, a green revolution holding signs saying is america with us, the president was silent. i think they noticed that as well. and i think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and israel, that they noticed that as well. all of these things suggested, i think, to the iranian mullahs that, hey, we can keep on pushing along here. we can keep talks going on. but we're just going to keep on spinning centrifuges. now there are some 10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium, prepare fog create a nuclear threat to the united states

and to the world. that's unacceptable to us. and it's essential for a president to show strength from the very beginning. to make it very clear what is acceptable and not acceptable. and an iranian nuclear program is not acceptable to us. they must not develop nuclear capability. and the way to make sure they understand that is by having from the very beginning the tightest sanctions possible. they need to be tightened. our diplomatic isolation needs to be tougher. we need to indict ahmadinejad. we need to put the pressure on them as hard as we possibly can. because if we do that, we won't have to take the military action. >> bob, let me just respond. nothing governor romney just said is true. starting with this notion of me apologizing this has been probably the biggest whopper that has been told during the course of this campaign. and every fact checker and every reporter has looked at it. the governor-- governor, and said this is not true. when it comes to tightening sanctions, look, as i said before, we put in the

toughest, most crippling sanctions ever. and the fact is while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a chinese state oil company that was doing business with iranian oil sector. so i will let the american people decide, judge, who is going to be more effective and more credibility-- credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions. and with respect to our attitude about the iranian revolution, i was very clear about the murderous activities that had taken place. and that was contrary to international law and everything that civil lyzed people-- civilized people stand for. and so the strength that we have shown in iran is shown by the fact that we have been able to mobilize the world. when i came into office the world was divided. iran was resurgent. iran is at its weakest point economically, strategically, militarily then in many

years. and we are going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon. that's in america's national interest. and that will be the case so long as i am president. >> schieffer: . >> we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. we're four years closer to a nuclear iran. and we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer. that is number one. number two, mr. president, the reason i call it an apology tour is because you went to the middle east and you flew to egypt and to saudi arabia and to turkey and and iraq and by the way, you skipped israel. our closest friend in the region. but you went to the other nations. and by the way, they noticed that you skipped israel. and then in those nations and on arabic tv you said that america what been dismissive and derisive. you said on occasion america had dictated to other nations. mr. president, america has not dictated to other nations. we have freed other nations

from dictators. >> bob, let me respond. you know f we're going to talk about trips that we've taken, when i was a candidate for office first trip i took was to visit our troops. and when i went to israel as a candidate, i didn't take donors. i didn't attend fund-raisers. i went to the holocaust museum there to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with israel will be unbreakable. then i went down to the border towns which had experienced missiles raining down from hamas. and i saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms. and i was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids. which is why as president we funded an iron dome program to stop those missiles. so that is how i have used

my travels. when i traveled to israel and when i traveled to the region. and the central question at this point is going to be who is going to be credible to all parties involved. and they can look at my track record, whether it's iran sanctions, whether it's dealing with counterterrorism, whether it's supporting democracy, whether it's supporting women's rights, whether it's supporting religious minorities, and they can say that the president of the united states and the united states of america has stood on the right side of history. and that kind of credibility is precisely why we've been able to show leadership on a bide range of issues facing the world right now. >> schieffer: what if the prime minister of israel called you on the phone and said our bombers are on the way. we're going to bomb iran. what do you say? >> bob, let's not go into

hypotheticals of that nature. our relationship with israel, my relationship with the prime minister of israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way, or their fighters are on the way. this is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of-- . >> schieffer: so you say it just wouldn't happen. well, let's see what -- >> let me come back-- let's come back to what the president was speaking about which is what is happening in the world. and the president's statement that things are going so well. look, i look at what is happening around the world and eye see iran four years closer to a bomb. i see the middle east with a rising tide of violence, chaos, tumult. i see jihaddists continuing to spread whether they are rising or just about the same level, hard 20 precisely measure but it is clear they are there. they have very strong. i see syria with 30,000 civilians dead. assad still in power. i see our trade deficit with china larger than-- growing larger every year, as a

matter of fact. i look around the world and i don't feel that you see north korea, continuing to export their nuclear technology. russia said they are not going to follow-- lugar and more, back away from nuclear proliferation treaty that we had with them. i look around the world, i don't see our influence growing around the world. i see our influence receding in part because of the failure of the president to deal with our economic challenges at home. in part because of our withdrawal from our commitment to our military in the way i think it ought to be. in part because of the turmoil with israel. i mean the president received a letter from 38 democrat senators saying the tensions with israel were a real problem. they asked him, please repair the tension-- democrat senators. please repair the damage, in his own party. >> governor, the problem is that on a whole range of issues, whether it's the middle east, whether it's afghanistan, whether it's

iraq, whether it's now iran, you've been all over the map. i mean i'm pleased that you now are endorsing our policy, applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the iranians to end their nuclear program. but just a few years ago you said that's something you would never do. in the same way that you initially opposed a timetable in afghanistan. now you're for it, although it depends. in the same way that you say you would have ended the war in iraq but recently gave a speech saying that we should have 20,000 more folks in there. the same way that you said that it was mission creek to go after qaddafi. when it comes to going after osama bin laden you said well any president would make that call. but when you were candidate in 2008 as i was, and i said

if i got bin laden in our sights i would take that shot. you said we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man. you said we should ask pakistan for permission. and we had asked pakistan permission, we would not have gotten him. and it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him. you know, after we killed bin laden, i was at ground zero for a memorial and talked to a young woman who was four years old when 9/11 happened. and the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers. saying peyton, i love you and i will always watch over you. and for the next decade she was haunted by that conversation. and she said to me, you know, by finally getting bin laden, that brought some closure to me. and when we do things like that, when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world and it

tells peyton that we did not forget her father and i make that point because that's the kind of clarity of leadership. and those decisions are not always popular. those decisions genuin genuine-- generally are not poll tested. and even some in my own party, including my current vice president had the same critique as you did. but what the american people understand is that i look at what we need to get done to keep the american people safe. and to move our interests forward. and i make those decisions. >> schieffer: all right, let's g and that leads us, this takes us right to the next sector, governor, america's longest war, afghanistan and pakistan. governor, you get to go first. >> but you can't have the president just lay out a whole series of-- items without giving me a chance to respond. >> schieffer: with respect, sir, you had laid out quite a program there. >> that's probably true. >> schieffer: we'll catch up. united states is scheduled to turn over responsibility for security in afghanistan to the afghan government in

2014. at that point we will withdraw our combat troops, leave a smaller force of americans, if i understand our policy, in afghanistan for training purposes, it seems to me the key question here is what do you do if the deadline arrives and it is obvious the afghans are unable to handle their security. go do we still leave. i believe, governor romney, you go first. >> well, we're going to be finished by 2014. and when i'm president we will make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. the commanders and the generals there are on track to do so. we've seen progress over the past several years. the surge has been successful. and the training program is proceeding at pace. there are now a large number of afghan security forces, 350,000 that are ready to step in to provide security. and we're going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014. so our troops will come home

at that point. i can't tell-- can tell you at the same time that we will make sure that, we look at what is happening in pakistan. and recognize that what's happening in pakistan is going to have a major impact on the success in afghanistan. and i say that because i know a lot of people just feel like we should just brush our hands and walk away, an i done mean you, mr. president, but some people in our nation, feel that pakistan is being nice to us and we should just walk away from them. but pakistan is important to the region, to the world and to us. because pakistan has 100 nuclear warheads. and they are rushing to build a lot more. they will have more than great britain sometime in the relatively near future. they also have the haqqani network and the taliban existent within their country. and so a pakistan that falls a part and becomes a failed state would be an extraordinary danger to afghanistan and to us. and so we're going to have to remain helpful in encouraging pakistan to move

towards a more stable government, and rebuild a relationship with us. and that means that our aid that we provide to pakistan is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met. so for me, i look at this as both a need to help move pakistan in the right direction and also to get afghanistan to be ready. and they will be ready by the end 20614. >> schieffer: mr. president. >> when i came into office we were still bogged down in iraq. and afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. we ended the war in iraq, refocused our attention in afghanistan. and we did deliver a surge of troops. that was facilitated in part because we had ended the war in iraq. and we are now in a position where we have met many of the objectives that got us there in the first place. part of what had happened is we had forgotten why we had gone. we went because there were people who were responsible for 3,000 american deaths. and so we decimated al

qaeda's core leadership in the border regions between afghanistan and pakistan. we then started to build up afghan forces. and we're now in a position where we can transiltion-- transition out, because there is no reason why americans should die when afghans are perfectly capable of defending their own country. now that transition has to take place in a responsible fashion. we've been there a long time. and we've got to make sure that we and and our coalition partners are pulling out responsibleably and giving afghans the capabilities that we need. but what i think the american people recognize is after a decade of war it's time to do some nation building here at home. and what we can now do is free up some resources to, for example, put americans back to work, especially our veterans. rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our schools. making sure that, you know, our veterans are getting the care that they need when it

comes to post traumatic stress disorder and dramatic brain injury. making sure that the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place. i was having lunch with some veteran in minnesota who had been a medic, dealing with the most extreme circumstances. when we came home and he wanted to become a nurse, he had to start from scratch. and what we have said is let's change those certifications. the first lady has gone great work with an organization called joining forces putting our veterans back to work. as a consequence, veterans the unemployment is lower than the general population. when i came in it was higher. so those are the kinds of things we can now do because we are making that transition in afghanistan. >> schieffer: let me go to governor romney. because you talked about pakistan and what needs to be done there. general allen, our commander in afghanistan says that americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are

supported by pakistan. we know that pakistan has arrested the doctor who helped us catch obama's bin laden. it's still provides safe haven for terrorists, yet we continue to get pakistan-- give pakistan billions of dollars. is it time for us to divorce pakistan? >> no, it's not time to divorce a nation on rert that has 100 nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point. a nation that has a serious threat from terrorist groups within its nation. as i indicated before, the taliban, haqqani network, it's a nation that is not like others and does not have a civilian leadership that is calling the shots there. you have their intelligence organization is probably the most powerful of the three branches there, then you have the military. then you have the civilian government. this is a nation which, if it falls a part, if it becomes a failed state,

their nuclear weapons there. and you've got terrorists there who can grab their hands on to those nuclear weapons. this is an important part of the world for us. pakistan is technically an ally. and they're not acting very much like an ally right now. but we have some work to do. and i don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with pakistan is strained. we had to go into pakistan. we had to go in there to get osama bin laden. that was the right thing to do. and that up set them but there was obviously a great deal of anger even before that. but we're going to have to work with the people in pakistan to try and help them move to a more responsible course than the one that they are on. and it's important for them. it's important for the nuclear weapons. it's important for the success of afghanistan. because inside pakistan you have a large pashtuns that are taliban, they are going to come rushing back in to afghanistan when we go. and that's one of the reasons the afghan security forces have so much work to

do to be able to fight against that. but it's important for us to recognize that we can't just walk away from pakistan. but we do need to make sure that as we send support for them, that this is tied to them making progress on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society. >> schieffer: let me ask you, governor, because we know president obama's position on this. what is your position on its use of drones? >> well, i believe that we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a throat us and our friends around its world. and it's widely reported it that drones are being used in drone strikes. and i support that entirely. and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use if to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation. and to our friends. let me also notes that as i said earlier, we're going to have to do more than just going after leaders and killing bad guys, important as that is.

we're also going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and islamic extremism. we haven't done that yet. we talk a lot about these things but you look at the record. you look at the record of the last four years and say, is iran closer to a bomb? yes. is the middle east in tumult, yes. is al qaeda on the run? on its heels? no. is, are israel and the palestinians closer to reaching a peace agreement, no, they haven't had talks in two years. we have not seen the progress we need to have. and i'm convinced that with strong leadership and an effort to build a strategy based upon helping these nations reject extremism we can see the kind of peace and prosperity the world demands. >> well, keep in mind, our strategy wasn't just going after bin laden. we've created partnerships throughout the region to deal with extremism. there somalia, in yemen, in pakistan. and what we've also done is

engage these governments in the kind of reforms that are actually going to make a difference in people's lives day-to-day. to make sure that their governments aren't corrupt; to make sure that they are treating women with the kind of respect and dignity that every nation that succeeds has shown. and to make sure that they've got a free market system that works. so accord the board we are engaging them in building capacity in these countries. and we've stood on the side of democracy. one thing i think americans should be proud of, when ton esians began to protes protest-- tunesians ban to protest this nation, me, my administration stood with them earlier than just about any other country. in egypt when stood on the side of democracy, in libya we stood on the side of the people. and as a consequence, there is no doubt that attitudes about americans have changed. but there are always going

to be elements in these countries that potentially threaten the united states. and we want to shrink those groups and those networks and we can do that. but we're always also going to have to maintain vigilance when it comes to terrorist activity. the true is that al qaeda as much weaker than it was when i came into office and they don't have the same capacity to attack the u.s. homeland and our allies as they did four years ago. >> schieffer: let's go to the next segment because it is a very important one. it is the rise of china and future challenges for america. i want to just begin this by asking both of you and mr. president, you go first this time. what do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country? >> well, i think it will continue to be terrorist networks. we have to remain vigilant as i just said. but with respect to china,

china's both an adversary but also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules. so my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that china plays by the same rules as everybody else. and i know americans have seen jobs being shipped overseas, businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade. and that's the reason why i set up a trade task force to go after cheaters when it came to international trade. that's the reason why we have brought more cases against china for violating trade rules than the previous administration had done in two terms. and we've won just about every case that we filed that has been decided. in fact, just recently, steelworkers in ohio and throughout the midwest, pennsylvania are in a position now to sell steel to china because we won that

case. we had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic tires-- or cheap chinese tires. and we put a stop to it. and as a consequence, saved jobs throughout america. i have to say that governor romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case. said this wouldn't be good for american workers and that it would be protectionist. but i tell you, those workers don't feel that way. they feel as if they had finally an administration who was going to take this issue seriously. over the long-term, in order for us to compete with china, we've also got to make sure, though, that we are taking care of business here at home. if we don't have the best education system in the world, if we don't continue to put money into research and technology that will allow us to create great businesses here in the united states, that's how we lose the competition. and unfortunately governor romney's budget and his proposals would not allow us

to make those investments. >> schieffer: all right, governor. >> well, first of all, it is not government that makes business successful, it's not government investments that make businesses grow and hire people. let me also note that the greatest threat that the world faces, the greatest national security threat is a nuclear iran. let's talk about china. china has an interest that is very much like ours. in one respect. and that is they want a stable world. they don't want war. they don't want to see protectionism. they don't want to see the world break out into various forms of chaos because they have to manufacture goods and put people to work. they have about 20 million people coming out of the farms every year, coming into the cities, needing jobs. so they want the economy to work and the world to be free and open. and so we can be a partner with china. we don't have to be an adversary in any way, shape or form. we can work with them, we can collaborate with them if they are willing to be responsible. now if they look at us and say is it a good idea to be

with america, how strong are we going to be? how strong is our economy. they look at the fact that we owe them a trillion dollars. and owe other people 16 trillion in total, including that. they look at our decision to cut back on our military capabilities. a trillion dollars, the secretary of defense called these trillion dollars of cuts to our military devastating. it's not my term. it's the president's own secretary of defense calls them devastating. they look at america's commitments around the world and they see what is happening and they say well, okay s america going to be strong. and the answer is yes, if i'm president america will be very strong. we'll also make sure that we have trade relations with china that fork for us-- that work for us. i've watched year in and year out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because china has not played by the same rules. there part by holding down artificially the value of their currency, it holds down the prices of their goods, it means our goods aren't as competencive-- competitive

and we lose jobs. that has got to end. they are making progress, that is why on day one i will label them a currency manipulater which allows us to apply tariffs where they are taking jobs, they are stealing intellectual property, at that time ent-- patents, designs, technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods. they have to understand we want to trade with them. we want a world that's stable. we like free enterprise but you got to play by the rules. >> schieffer: governor, let me just ask you, if you declare them a currency manipulater on day one, some people are saying are you just going to start a trade war with china on day one. is that-- isn't there a rising that that could happen? >> well, they sell us about this much stuff every year. and we still them about this much stuff every year. so it's pretty clear who doesn't want a trade war. and there's one going on right now which we don't know about, it is a silent one. and they're winning. we have enormous trade imbalance with china and it's worse this year than last year. and it's worse last year than the year before.

and so we have to understand that we can't just surrender and lose jobs year in and year out. we have to say to our friends in china, look, you guys are playing aaggressively. we understand it but this can't keep on going. you can't keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our intellectual property. counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world, even not united states. i was with one company that makes valves in process industries. and they said look, we were having some valves coming in that were broken. and we had to repair them under warranty. and we looked them up and they had our serial number on them. and then we noticed there was more than one with that same serial number. there were counterfeit products made overseas with the same serial number as a u.s. company, the same packaging. these were being sold into our market and around the world as if they were made by the u.s. competitor. this can't go on. i want a great relationship with china. china can be our partner. but that doesn't mean they can just roll all over us

and steal our jobs on an unfair basis. >> well, governor romney's right. you are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas because you invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas. and you know, that's-- you're right. that is how our free market works. but i have made a different bet on american workers. we if we have taken your advice about our auto industry we would be buying cars from china instead of selling cars to china. if we take your advice with respect to how we change our tax codes so that companies that earn profits overseas don't pay u.s. taxes, compared to companies here that are paying taxes, that is estimated to create $8-- 800,000 jobs. the problem is they won't be here, they will be in places like china. and if we are not making investments in education and basic research which is not something that the private sector is doing at a sufficient pace right now and has never done, then we will lose the lead in things like clean energy technology.

now with respect to what we have done with china already, u.s. exports have doubled. since i came into office to china. and actually currencies are at their most advantageous point for u.s. exporters since 1993. we absolutely have to make more progress and that's why we're going to keep on pressing. and when it comes to our military and chinese security, part of the reason that we were able to pivot to the asia-pacific region after having ended the war in iraq and transitioning out of afghanistan is precisely because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future. and we believe china can be a partner but we're also sending a very clear signal that america is a pacific power that we are going to have a presence there. we are working with countries in the region to make sure, for example, that ships can pass through, that commerce continues and we're

organizing trade relations with countries other than china so that china starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards. that's the kind of leadership we've shown in the region. that's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show. >> i just want to take one of those points, again, attacking me is not talking about an agenda for getting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country. but the president mentioned the auto industry and that somehow i would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere. nothing could be further from the truth. i am a son of detroit. i was born in detroit. my dad was head of a car company. i like american cars. and i would do nothing to hurt the u.s. auto industry. my plan to get the industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. that was president bush that wrote the first checks. i disagree with that. i said these companies need go through a managed bankruptcy and in that process they can get government help and government guarantees but they need to go through a

bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they had built up. and -- >> governor romney, that's not what you said. >> you can take a look -- >> governor romney, you did not say that you would provide government help. >> i said we would provide guarantees and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy to come out of bankruptcy under no circumstances would i do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. and the idea that has been sulingdz that i would liquidate the industry, of course not. of course not. >> let's check the record. >> i have never said -- >> let's check the record. >> that i i would liquidate the industry. >> the people in detroit don't forget. >> i. >> that's dr.i have the kind of commitment to make sure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. we in this country can compete successfully with anyone in the world. and we're going to. we're going to have to have a president, however that doesn't think that somehow the government investing in car companies like tesla and

fisker, making electric battery cars there is not research, mr. president. these are-- the government investing in companies. investing in solyndra, this isn't basic research. i want to invest in research. research is great. providing funding to universities and think tanks, great. but investing in companies? absolutely not. >> governor-- the fact of the matter is -- >> i'm still speaking. i want to make sure we make america more competitive and that we do those things that make america the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovaters, businesses to grow. but are you investing in companies doesn't do that. in fact, it makes it less likely for them to come here because the private secretary certificate to the going to invest in a solar company. >> i'm happy to respond to you. >> you have had the floor for a while. >> look, i think anybody out there can check the record. governor romney, you keep on trying to air brush history

here. you were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the u.s. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. you said they could get it in the private marketplace. that wasn't true they would have gone through a -- >> you're wrong. >> no, i'm not wrong. >> people can look it up, you're right. >> people will look it up. but more importantly, it is true that in order for us to be competitive, we're going to have to make some smart choices right now. cutting our education budget, that's not a smart choice. that will not help us compete with china. cutting our investments in research and technology, that's not a smart choice that will not help us compete with china. bringing down our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military is to the asking for before we even get to the debt that we currently have, that is 23409 going to make us more competitive. those are the kinds of choices that the american people face right now.

having a tax code that rewards companies that are shipping jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing here in the united states that will not make us more competitive. and the one thing that i'm absolutely clear about is that after a decade in which we saw a drift, jobs being shipped overseas, nobody championing american workers and american businesses, we've now gone to make real progress. what we can't do is go back to the same policies that got us into such difficulty in the first place. that's why we have to move forward and to the go back. >> i couldn't agree pore about going forward but i certainly don't want to go back to the policies of the last four years. the policies of the last four years have seen incomes in america decline every year for middle income families. now down 4,300 during your term. 23 million americans still struggling to find a good job. when you came to office 32 million people on food stamps. today 47 million people on food stamps.

when you came to office just over ten trillion dollars in debt, now 16 trillion dollars in debt it hasn't worked. you said by now we'd be at 5.4% unemployment. we're 9 million jobs short of that. i've met some of those people. i've met them in appleton, wisconsin. i met a young woman in philadelphia who is coming out of college, can't find work. ann was with someone just the other day that was just weeping about not being able to get work. it's just a tragedy in a nation so prosperous as ours that these last four years have been so hard. and that's why it is so critical that we make america once again the most attractive place in the world to start businesses, to build jobs, to grow the economy. and that's not going to happen by just hiring teachers. look, i love teachers. and i'm happy to have states and communities that want to hire teachers do that. by its way, i don't like to have the federal government start pushing its way deeper and deeper into our schools. let the states and

locallities do that i was a governor. the federal government didn't hire our teachers. but i love teachers. but i want to get our private sector growing and i know how to do it. >> schieffer: i think we all love teachers. gentlemen, thank you so much for a very vigorous debate. we have come to the end. it is time for closing statements. i believe you're first, mr. president. >> thank you very much, bob, governor romney, and to lynn university. you have now heard three debates, months of campaigning and way too many tv commercials. and now you've got a choice. over the last four years we've made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us two prolonged wars, record deficits and the worst economic crisis since the great depression. and governor romney wants to take us back to those policies. foreign policy that is wrong and reckless; economic policies that won't create jobs, won't reduce our deficit, but will make sure that folks at the very top

don't have to play by the same rules that you do. and i've got a different vision for america. i want to build on our strengths. and i've put forward a plan to make sure that we are bringing manufacturing jobs back to our shores. by rewarding companies and small businesses that are investing here, not overseas. i want to make sure we've got the best education system in the world. and we are retaining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. i want to control our own energy by developing oil and natural gas but also the energy sources of the future. yes, i want to reduce our deficit by cutting spending that we don't need but also by asking the wealthy to do a little bit more so that we can invest in things like research and technology that are the key to a 21st century economy. as command never chief i will maintain the strongest military in the world, keep faith with our troops and go after those who would did u us-- do us harm. but after a decade of war, i think we all recognize we got to do some nation

building here at home, rebuilding our roads, our bridges and especially caring for our veterans who sacrificed so much for our freedom. we've been through tough times. but we always bounce back because of our character. because we pull together. and if i have the privilege of being your president for another four years, i promise you i will always listen your voices, i will fight for your families. and i will work every single day to make sure that america continues to be the greatest nation on erts. thank you. >> schieffer: governor. >> thank you, bob, mr. president, folks at lynn university, good to be with you. i am optimistic about the future. i am excited about our prospects as a nation. i want to see peace. i want to see growing peace in this country. it's our objective. we have an opportunity to have real leadership. america is going to have that kind of leadership and continue to promote principleses of peace that will make the world a safer place and make people in this country more confident that their future is secure. i also want to make sure

that we get this economy going. and there are two very different paths the country can take. one is a path represented by the president which at the end of four years would mean we have 20 trillion dollars in debt, heading towards greece. i will get us on track to a balanced budget. the president's path will mean continuing declinesing in take-home pay. i want to make sure our take-home pay turns around and starts to grow. the president's path means 20 million people out of work struggling for a good job, i will get people back to work with 12 million new jobs. i mr. going to make sure we get people off of food stamps to the by cutting the program but by getting them good jobs. america's going to come back and for that to happen we're going have to have a president who can work across the aisle. i was in a state where my legislature was 87% democrat. i learned how to get along. on the other side of the aisle. we've got to do that in washington. washington is broken. i know what it takes to get this country back and we'll work with good democrats and good republicans to do that.

this nation is the hope of the earth. we have been blessed by having a nation that's free and prosperous thanks to the contributions of the greatest generation. they've held a torch for the world to see. a torch of freedom an hope and opportunity. now it's our turn to take that torch. i'm convinced we'll do it we need strong leadership. i would like to be that leader with your support. ail's working with you. i will lead new an open an honest way and ski for your vote. i would like to be the next president of the united states to support and help this great nation and to make sure that we all together maintain america as the hope of the erts. thank you so much. >> schieffer: gentlemen, thank you both some of. that bridges an end to this year's debate and we want to thank lynn university and its students for having us. as i always do at the end of these debates, i leave you with the words of my mom who said go vote. makes you feel big and strong. >> that's great.

>> schieffer: good night. >> thank you, bon. >> thank you. (applause) >> woodruff: with that this final debate between president obama and mitt romney is done. we watched them shake hands with the moderatedder, bob schieffer of cbs and i'm sure any moment now their wives and families will come on stage to give them a hug and wish them well. >> ifill: they greet each other as if they like each other even though from watching 90 minutes it didn't much look like it. >> woodruff: it sure didn't. gwen, this was a vigorous debate over, we say, a small list of countries, most of which are located in the middle east, afghanistan, pakistan and there at the end a little bit on china. i think we did hear two clear, direct to the camera closing statements from these candidates. and i think we saw mark shields, a more shall we say restrained mitt romney than we've seen in previous debates. >> no, i thought mitt romney played the hurt party and

played it quite well. and i thought the president went after him. he was quite aggressive, right from the outset. you've got, you're fighting a cold war policies of the 1980s, the social policies of the 1950s, the economic policies of the 1920s. and i think that was the president's strategy, to rattle him. and to expose the inconsistencies, sort of the etch-a-sketch that has been part of the litany of accusations against mitt romney. >> ifill: mark shield, send cade the columnist is joined with david brooks, what did you think. >> i wrote who is the challenger and who is the incumbent from the style would you think mitt romney was the incumbent and in the lead and that barack obama was the chall be enger and behind, he was much more aggressive, trying to is up yet-- upset the race, stylistickically that was the mo interesting. if you listened closely there is a lot of

agreementment on lib ya, on syria. i thought they were equally demagogic on china, on iran, afghanistan,. politically i guess i would have to say it was sort of a tie, maybe because romney looked equally presidential. you would give a slight edge to romney if you were thinking about political polls. i can't imagine it will have a tremendous effect on the polls. >> ifill: did these candidates have different goals tonight? mitt romney who came with the wind at his back was trying to maintain that. and was it barack obama trying to do, mark. >> i think barack obama was reflecting the reality of the polls, that it's been slipping and heading in the other direction, trying to change the trajectory of the race. i thought he made a strong case against mitt romney. he was obviously not hesitating to go personal upon him. i agree with david, they felt they had to disagree even though there wasn't disagreement. but one thing they didn't disagree on was the argue

over who cares more and loves israel more. i got 22 mentions of israel, 0 of europe, 0 of asia, other than china. japan went unmentioned. india went unmentioned. you know. >> ifill: you start the list, to you go to mexico, every -- >> the entire north american continent. >> mali had a very good night. >> it came up several times. >> woodruff: david, it did seem to me that mitt romney had a clear strategy of not trying to get-- not only not get rattled, but to be agreeable, to be as you said a minute ago, presidential, above the fray. i think i counted at least three or four times where he said stepping back here, to take a bigger picture. >> partly he's got it distance himself frankly from the bush administration. some perception that he is republican, will get us into a lot of wars. he mentioned peace more than george mcgovern probably did in equal debates. then a lot of the swing voters are women. and he doesn't want to feel

too aggressive and too hostile so he wants to feel somebody who is secure, someone you can trust. and then finally he just wants to seem presidential. and so those were obviously the three goals and there is one thing if you give mitt romney some goals he will stick to them. >> ifill: was it me, mark or was the president also trying to stick it to mitt romney on several different occasions, most notably the horses and bayonnettes flying. >> mitt romney, well, basically, we're ending two wars and mitt romney wants to increase defense spending. and there is a certain disconnect there. with i think with most americans. that would seem to make sense. and his complaint is that the navy will be smaller and the president i thought it was depending upon how you feel, was it too mean, it was too snide or was t in fact, a pretty devastating rebuttal of romney. and the fact the president understated the number of nations, i thinks actual count by james's military

guide is that we spend more than the next 15 nations. >> ifill: he said ten. >> he said ten but you know, i believe it's 15 at the last count. and interesting thing is, romney keeps saying government doesn't create jobs but if we cut defense spending, itsee going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. so apparently government spending creates job if it's in defense. but not if it's in nondefense. i think that seems to be. >> i do think the romney budget which is pivoting to asia that requires fair number of ships, romney made this point which is the middle east is sort of going into as they said tonight, tumult. many times, tumult came up lot. so you can't have it, you can't be more aggressive in the face of really a deteriorating situation notice middle east with a pivot to asia with fewer ships, so it is intellectually defensible. the thing is how people will

respond to the tone of the bayonnettes line. i found it a little con desecond. it was tough. i suppose democrats will like it. some people may find it a little condescending and mean. >> are you saying the president should have been more laid back at that point or what? >> well, you know, i would have tried to equal the toughness. he is tough, he's allowed to go on the attack. i would have tried to have a more positive forward vision. i continue to think that is lacking. >> there was a big chunk in the middle of the debate, i counted it, at least 15 minutes where they weren't talking about foreign policy at all. they were talking about education and energy production. >> u.s. economy. >> and teachers and automobiles, you name it they were talking about the u.s. economy. there is clearly a method to that madness, mark. >> no question. i mean that is what the election is about. that is what is paramount in voter'ss' concerns, and that is where it will be decided. the president, 15 minutes after the hour said we can't be strong internationally unless we are strong at home. and then he made his case. and we found out that

teachers unions are strong, strong against teachers union you will up set the mullahs in tehran. >> also listening to this debate here with us is our colleague jeffrey brown. >> brown: and i am, once again, on debate night here with presidential historian michael beschloss and our political editor christina ben antoni. the long and short of it, christina what did you get from social media and other places. >> it is exactly what mark and judy and gwen and david were talking about, domestic policy came up a lot, something that a lot of different people were responding to. it was also a little different in this debate because video played some of of a factor there were a lot of things that the president and mitt romney each brought up from the past, sort of fact checking even other where there is youtube video of that example. >> brown: what kind of things. >> well, specifically, what mitt romney said about russia. what the president did when he went on that trip that he talked about in 2007, 2008 going to overseas to visit troops as a candidate.

so video of that was surfacing where people could actually go back and fact check that. it was less of the let detroit go bankrupt question which is an op ed and sort of nuance with the headline this was an actual go watch the video. >> brown: michael what did you hear tonight? >> i heard something that had resonance in history which is that incumbent presidents debating usually try to disqualify their opponent. barack obama i think very few people would say tonight that he didn't show limb self more comfortable talking about foreign policy. he's been doing it for four years. but obama wanted tonight to disqualify romney as commander in chief, as sort of an amateur, a warmonger. couldn't quite do it. and he's in a long tradition of that ford couldn't, jimmy carter-- carter couldn't, george h.w. bush could in the in 18982. they lost an opportunity to stop an opponent who was really coming on. and in romney's case, i think he felt that if he got through 90 minutes without, while holding his own without doing himself any harm, it is sort of a tas et

way of essentially gaining the upper land in this debate. i was amazed that it took until 9:43 for him to use the word apology tour, or to accuse obama of what democrats had been accused of by republicans for 40 year, too much weakness. had he been more aggressive you would have heard that probably in the first 10 minutes. >> brown: it is interesting. because there is the campaign where it was all about the economy. these are issues that rarely get much attention at all. so was there-- how did that strike you, just as you hear them ticked off and how people react to them. >> both of them were trying to relate them back to domestic issues as we were just talking about. and actually we were paying attention to this group of wal-mart moms, a focus group that is happening in the battleground states. and most of the moms were responding to the domestic issues. she said this was again, as they are fighting over female voters that we keep discussing, they're trying to target those things. i also know that shall did --. >> brown: the 15 minutes gwen was talking about, targeting them. >> mitt romney talked quite a bit about his tenure as

governor of massachusetts which is not something he has talked about that much in some of the other debates. not something he talking much about on the trail. one thing i noticed in social media both sides were doing spin on each answer which makes me think that it was a little bit more of a draw than some of the other debates had been. a little more clearly for one man or the other. >> brown: of course these are also incredibly complicated issues. you what do you do about sir ya, what do you do about afghanistan, they don't get into ads. they don't get into stump speech, usually and hard to get clear into a debate. >> that's right. and so basically these candidates are trying to cast an impression because exactly what you are saying is right. and romney was trying to do, in a way what ronald reagan did in 1980 against jimmy carter. it was about 10% undecided voters who are saying we might vote for reagan, we're worried that he is a warmonger, he said things when obama said that romney had been all over the map it was just what reagan was accused of. so what romney was trying to do, especially with women, would say i'm not a warmonger.

i'm not someone who you need worry about. as command never chief. >> brown: you just asked, because it is the last one of these things, right, do you have a sense, an overarching sense that these debates were more important or influential, perhaps, than debates past? >> i think in one sense, and that is when you have a challenger who is as little known as mitt romney has been, for instance, you know, it's oftentimes the case that americans have known a political figure who has been on the scene, who is sort of familiar to them as a challenger. that's not true with mitt romney. so they have watched him three times, 90 minutes, three debates. he had a chance to essentially say i am a worthy alternative to barack obama. hard to argue that he didn't do that. >> brown: of course these are as we've taujed about from the beginning the first ones to really be taken in with several skrins at a time and social media. >> exactly that is where it is a small d democratic. are you opening this process up to more people, and particularly those younger voters. they are getting engaged in a different type of way by

following through their own social met york-- networks whether on facebook, twitter or youtube clips later, different than the traditional sitting in front of the television when are you at home at one point of time. so of course we have to mention that horses and bayonnettes joke we were talking about a minute ago. that of course no debate is complete without somebody starting tumblr that is the one. >> that is really what hit. also the 80s joke, that the president made, 1980s column and they-- calling and they want their foreign policy back, the immediate joke on twitter was 1980s called they want their joke back. christina bellantoni, michael burb lost, thanks so much. back to you. >> before we go back to the site at lynn university i want to talk to you about another interesting thing which is that president obama kept saying repeatedly you are all over the place. are you all over the place. every time you have opted an opinion you have been wrong. and invariably mitt romney's response, mark, has been to say attacking me is not a policy. is not a policy. >> that's right. and i thought the president

president made the charges. i didn't think he followed up on them. and i think in order to do that you've got to say you did on this date and did you on that date. and romney just kind of deflected it by, as i said earlier sort of the hurt approach. i did think that romney's strongest argument whether it was substantive or not was on china. that is a fight for the midwest, a fight for ohio. and china played by the rules, really does resonate with a lot of americans. and the president was wrong when he said the iraq-iran war was 20 years ago t was 32 years ago. and finally i would just say that the theme that washington's broken was used by bill clone ton in '92, george bush in 2000, barack obama in 2008 and now it's being used by again and resonating by mitt romney. >> woodruff: back now to the debate site at lynn university where gwen and i are joined by ari schapiro and scott horsley of npr. ari, you've been following aromney. what did he want to do

tonight, and go he do it? >> he felt like he had the momentum going into tonight's debate and so i think he wanted to be a little bit more cautious than president obama who was a bit more aggressive this evening. a rom-- romney as you remember had a few missteps on forence policy whether it was his summer trip overseas or initial response to the libya attack. and so he seemed to me to be more cautious this evening. and also de-emphasizing the sort of neoconservative aspects of, you know, going to war, aggression, things like that, instead saying we can't just kill our way out of these problems and we're going to be out of afghanistan in 2014, more definitively than in the past. to deflect the attacks that might have portrayed him as a warmonger. >> ifill: and scott, the same degree to which mitt romney was being, as regardi described it, was holding back, some it seemed like the president was not holding back at all. was that part of his strategy? >> no, he wasn't holding back at all it was interesting, even when

governor romney was talking, the president was staring straight at romney and just looking daggers at him almost contempuous of his o point here. what he was trying to do is remind people of those missteps romney said during the course of this campaign. he said over and over again that whenever romney has expressed an opinion on foreign policy it has been the wrong one, wrong and reckless was his refrain. >> woodruff: and scott, the other thing is i noticed the president at one point when governor romney accused him of apology tour, the line that we've heard a lot from governor romney, he came back forcefully. i think in a way that we had not heard from him. >> well, you know, at first he just sort of slugged it off and said the-- shrugged it off and said the fact checkers said there was no apology tour. and when romney persisted that is when the president opened with both barrels and said if we are going to talk about tours, about overseas travel, when i went to israel as a candidate i didn't bring my campaign contributor as long.

i didn't hold fund-raisers over there i went to the holocaust museum. i went to people who will been victims of missile attacks. it was very power. i thought it was akin to the moment in the second debate when again the president turned on governor romney when they were discussing libya and said that is not how we behave. a level contempt from the president. to some people it will look strong, to others it may look condescending. >> woodruff: ari, i wonder whether the romney folks went into this debate deciding because they would be sitting next to each other, because he had done so well in the first debate and at least in many people's opinions did well by holding his own in the second debate as well, i wonder if they came in to this deciding they would lean back a little bit and make this less, just look presidential and walk away from the fight. >> you know, i think the romney staff knew that the recipe for success for them was not going to be in fighting president obama on every foreign policy issue. in fact there were a lot of issues where romney said i agree with president obama on drones, on iran, on the

approach to syria and so on and so forth. instead they believe that this election will be won or lost basesed on the economy. so you saw governor romney at every possibility pivoting back to the economy, back to the unemployment numbers, back to, you know, college educated student was can't find jobs to fit their education. they thought he needed to sort of pass the commander in chief test today. president obama as he reminded the audience again and again is the sitting command ter in chief. but the romney staff thought if people in the audience could perceive romney as a potential command never chief that would be enough for them to get through this debate. >> woodruff: . >> woodruff: and scott finally quickly, we did hear the president try several times to pifer ot to the economy and talk about how we need to have a strong america in order to do these other things. that had to be part of a strategy on their part. >> absolutesly. i think they understand that foreign policy is to the going to be the decisive issue for a lot of people. they said look f you're going try to balance the budget, you don't start by adding 2 trillion to the

military budget. >> ari and scott, very quickly where do they go after this, where do they go, are they all going to set up camp in ohio or are they traveling to other places, ari? >> surprisingly mitt romney is asked actual-- schedule for the next few days does not include ohio, tomorrow in las vegas, overnight in colorado, denver, ten back to neff never for an event in reno before going to iowa. >> and scott? >> and the president has a cross-country trip that going to take him to six states in three days including two visits to ohio. >> sounds exhausting, for you. >> woodruff: scott horsley and ari schapiro we thank you both for that, for being with us from lynn university, the site of this debate so as we wrap up here, david brooks, where does this leave the campaign. >> you know, michael beschloss made the point that a number of incumbents have tried to discall fight their challengers. it occurs to me you can try, can push ard hard but if the challenger doesn't help you, self-disqualify, then is

lard to make that stick. so if you look to see -- >> if he doesn't fight back and doesn't make blunders, if he doesn't liberate central europe or that sort of thing i think he survives and does reasonably well and count this as a moderate good night for him. i do think he said i'm peaceful, i'm secure, i don't have to-- nothing to fear from me. he rose to the level of being presidential. >> what do you think about that. >> yeah, i thought the key point was that he was not, there was nothing neocon about him. he is not talking about going to war. and strangely enough, he had a variation of the president's strategy in the first debate. which was a little bit rope a dope. in other words, i'm going it to clinch, i'm going to agree, i will cut down the differences except when he felt that obligatory had to make some rhetorical differences on libya and syria earlier. but there really weren't any substantive. then he emphasized the agreement, he romney. and i think in that sense the clinch worked for him. and his manner worked for him. i mean he was steady.

the second debate there was a moment in which i thought his pet lens was about to lose his temper, there was physical exchange between him and the president. and tonight, boy, he was a lot more disciplined. >> ifill: win, lose or draw. >> draw, maybe a romney advantage, just a tins. >> woodruff: but it does raise the question f there was anything the president could have done to draw romney out it sounds like the answer is no. >> the only thing cohave done was to do what romney does from time to time which is to question. and say and wait a minute governor, you said this on this date and this on this date, which one is the real mitt romney. i mean and i think that was the only thing cohave done further. and romney didn't go for the bait. >> mark shields, david brook, hate to cut you off but we've got to go. with that we end our special report of this final debate between president barack obama and former governor mitt romney. the newshour will have expense-- extensive coverage both on air and on-line in

the last two weeks of this close-- close campaign including reports from key battleground states and our usual in-depth analysis of the issues shaping election 2012. >> woodruff: speak of on-line our analysis of tonight's debate continues with christina ben all on-- bellantoni in our after hours live stream. we will see you again here tomorrow night at our regular newshour time. for now i'm judy woodruff. >> and i'm gwen ifill, thank you and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by:

>> the world of dramatic landscapes. majestic castles and remarkable characters. all brought to liefer. so travelers can spend less time getting there and more time being there. viking cruises, exploring the world in comfort. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you.